I'm currently having bite+claw+claw, all of them are primary type.
My party and DM say that you can only have one primary attack, every other of them will be secondary, no matter the initial type.
Still can't find where this is written. You do treat them like secondaries if you're attacking with nats after manufactured weapon, but I never saw anything regarding combination of solely natural attacks.
I'm currently having bite+claw+claw, all of them are primary type.
My party and DM say that you can only have one primary attack, every other of them will be secondary, no matter the initial type.
Still can't find where this is written. You do treat them like secondaries if you're attacking with nats after manufactured weapon, but I never saw anything regarding combination of solely natural attacks.
Your friends and DM are wrong.
Have them look at the beastiary for creatures with multiple primary attacks - they get the same attack bonus as one another (unless one of the natural weapons has a weapon focus feat attached to it).For example:
Babbler or Blood Hawk or Hippogriff or Owlbear
I could go on... but hopefully this paints a pretty clear picture
|
Primary attacks are made using the creature's full base attack bonus and add the creature's full Strength bonus on damage rolls. Secondary attacks are made using the creature's base attack bonus –5 and add only 1/2 the creature's Strength bonus on damage rolls. If a creature has only one natural attack, it is always made using the creature's full base attack bonus and adds 1-1/2 times the creature's Strength bonus on damage rolls. This increase does not apply if the creature has multiple attacks but only takes one. If a creature has only one type of attack, but has multiple attacks per round, that attack is treated as a primary attack, regardless of its type.
|
As others have said, all primary attacks are always at full bonus no matter how many you have. And some creatures have quite a few (4+). This is, in fact, the prime advantage of natural attack characters (other than getting more attacks at low level).
They may have been thinking of the rules for combining natural and manufactured weaponry, which state that any natural attacks you use in a full attack that also uses manufactured weaponry are all treated as secondary. But this is irrelevant if you only full attack with the natural weapons.
They're confusing the Pathfinder rule with the 3.5 rule. In 3.5 they would be correct, but in Pathfinder primary/secondary is entirely determined based on the type of attack (and whether or not you're using them with a manufactured weapon). You have the right of it.
This is precisely the case. If they were well-steeped in 3.5, they likely missed the rules change from 3.5 to PF. I've had that conversation a couple of times.
In 3.5, no matter what the natural attacks were, you only had one primary attack. The rest were secondary. As others noted above (and as you well know, OP), PF changed this to the type of attack being what is relevant. No matter how many other natural attacks you have, a claw attack is always a primary natural weapon. That only changes if you combine it with manufactured weapons.
So hopefully the rules quoted above will be sufficient to explain their confusion. They're applying 3.5 rules to PF, not realizing the rules changed.
|
Here's the rest of the pertinent rule from where nefreet quoted
Natural Attacks Most creatures possess one or more natural attacks (attacks made without a weapon). These attacks fall into one of two categories, primary and secondary attacks. Primary attacks are made using the creature's full base attack bonus and add the creature's full Strength bonus on damage rolls. Secondary attacks are made using the creature's base attack bonus –5 and add only 1/2 the creature's Strength bonus on damage rolls. If a creature has only one natural attack, it is always made using the creature's full base attack bonus and adds 1-1/2 the creature's Strength bonus on damage rolls. This increase does not apply if the creature has multiple attacks but only takes one. If a creature has only one type of attack, but has multiple attacks per round, that attack is treated as a primary attack, regardless of its type. Table: Natural Attacks by Size lists some of the most common types of natural attacks and their classifications.
...
Creatures with natural attacks and attacks made with weapons can use both as part of a full attack action (although often a creature must forgo one natural attack for each weapon clutched in that limb, be it a claw, tentacle, or slam). Such creatures attack with their weapons normally but treat all of their natural attacks as secondary attacks during that attack, regardless of the attack's original type.
Gore 1 1d2 1d3 1d4 1d6 1d8 2d6 2d8 4d6 P Primary
Hoof, Tentacle, Wing — 1 1d2 1d3 1d4 1d6 1d8 2d6 2d8 B Secondary
Pincers, Tail Slap 1 1d2 1d3 1d4 1d6 1d8 2d6 2d8 4d6 B Secondary
Slam — 1 1d2 1d3 1d4 1d6 1d8 2d6 2d8 B Primary
Sting — 1 1d2 1d3 1d4 1d6 1d8 2d6 2d8 P Primary
Talons — 1 1d2 1d3 1d4 1d6 1d8 2d6 2d8 S Primary
Other — 1 1d2 1d3 1d4 1d6 1d8 2d6 2d8 B/S/P Secondary
Thanks a lot! Managed to persuade them and now I'm dishing 5 attack with my full BAB!
How are you doing 5 attacks with just a Bite/Claw/Claw?
How are you doing 5 attacks with just a Bite/Claw/Claw?
I meant "claws", each is a set of two.
You have four arms?
There is no rule as far as I'm aware that forbids you to have claws on your legs.
Yes, there is.
"Claws" on your feet, are talons.
It's been gone over many times.
Can I have some source on that?
Because there is Giant Eagle, and he has claws, not talons.|
|
Yes, there is.
"Claws" on your feet, are talons.
It's been gone over many times.
Can I have some source on that?
Because there is Giant Eagle, and he has claws, not talons.
They aren't very consistent on these things. They probably did it to make them primary attacks, though they also make secondary attacks into primary ones on other creatures (such as combat trained horses).
I wouldn't worry much about it. I'm not even sure the "claws on the feat -> talons" rule is even in PF anywhere.
You have four arms?There is no rule as far as I'm aware that forbids you to have claws on your legs.
What type of creature are you playing?
What type of creature are you playing?
Bipedal, constructed with 14 race points.
FAQ on claws on feet. Short answer, you need to be a quadruped to put claws on your feet. Otherwise they're talons.
I also found the thread after which they put it in there. It isn't mentioned in any rule block, not in universal monster rules, not in race builder, not even in a form of a sidenote.
Now I can see why they were leery in letting you use PF's rules, Lol.
And why were they? I still can put talons on my feet and they'll function exactly the same, just without blunt damage type, which comes to play seldom. I did my math there, no need to be cheeky.
As was just linked above me, claws go on your hands, talons go on your feet (barring one or two errors in the Bestiaries).
Great Eagle can be regarded as a typo, but what about Behir and Intellect Devourer? Not only they have multiple claw attacks, it is stated in their bio that their legs are clawed. Eidolon can have claws on its legs, this is hardly an error too (I do understand those aren't your ordinary monsters, but they are based heavily on universal monster feats).
I don't really understand what exactly is balanced by this statement in FAQ. Abuse of weapon focus or rending claws? Additional +1 to attack on those two natural weapons or higher chance to score 1d6 of damage aren't exactly gamebreaking. Those minor bonuses don't concern me, but flavor does.
Canines and felines have claws on their back limbs. Dinosaurs had talons on their upper limbs and some birds still have rudiments of those hidden in their wings. Talons aren't bottom claws, they are specific type of those, peculiar to raptors because of the structure of their limbs. How can you flavor a race of ancient anthropoids to have birdlike appendages?
I'll ask my DM what he thinks about it, don't really think he'll be concerned with it either.
|
|
Since you're straying pretty far already, and building your own race, I doubt there's anything we can say here that's relevant to your particular homebrew situation.
I'm not sure if I was being cheeky. I don't know what you think that definition means. Natural Attacks are a strong combat option, especially if you have multiple primary attacks.
Since Bite/Claw/Claw is already deadly, I was simply pointing out that adding two more Claw attacks would obviously increase your damage output to insane levels. Most sensible GMs (and parties) would want to scale that back in an effort of balancing out the table.
But, so long as your fellow players have similarly overpowered options available to them, it'll probably balance out.
Abuse of weapon focus or rending claws? Additional +1 to attack on those two natural weapons or higher chance to score 1d6 of damage aren't exactly "gamebreaking". Those minor bonuses don't concern me, but flavor does.
Tell me 2 additional attacks at full BAB is not game breaking...
So you specifically built a race with five primary natural attacks without seeing the inherent advantage?
I think a sensible houserule in your already homebrew situation would be to let the talons be secondary natural attacks.
You came here to ask if your gaming group was wrong.
They were, but so are you. do you tell them the whole story or just part of it?